Why Do Cold-Blooded Psychopaths Rule Our World? (Re-Post)

It seems that these days, and indeed for as long as anyone can remember, psychopaths and sociopaths (the former are born, the latter are made) have long been grossly overrepresented in positions of power.  The higher the echelons of the power hierarchy, the greater prevalence of psychopaths/sociopaths there are.  And it seems to have only gotten that much worse in recent decades in fact, and more global as well.

(Garden-variety psychopath, knife optional)

So why is that?  The answer, it seems, is patriarchy.  The following article from 2014 is a conversation between the legendary Guru Rasa Von Werder and great author William Bond, originally published on Rasa's Embodiment of God website. (My interspersed comments, as Ajax the Great, are in red.)

PSYCHOPATH PATRIARCHAL LEADERS by William Bond…..comments Rasa Von Werder….. 4 30 14

If we want to understand why we live in a world of conflict — wars, violence, abuse, poverty and suffering, then we have to go back to basics.  What is undisputed is that men rule our world and have done so for thousands of years.  Male-rule is what feminists call patriarchy – masculine rule – and masculinity (as defined in our present society) is aggression, force, violence and intimidation.

AJAX THE GREAT: Absolutely true indeed.  Truer words were never spoken.

RASA:  LET ME JUST ADD HERE THAT ALL THE STATISTICS – EDUCATIONAL AND EMPLOYMENT WISE, ARE POINTING TO WOMEN RISING, MEN FALLING BEHIND. THE FUTURE IS WOMEN, IT IS MATRIARCHY. HOLD ON, KEEP PRAYING AND BELIEVING, WOMEN WILL RULE THE WORLD, MEN WILL FALL. THEY ARE GOING EXTINCT. THEIR OWN ACTIONS HAVE BROUGHT DEATH UPON THEM.

AJAX SAYS:  Indeed, Women are rising, while men are falling away and falling apart, and have been so for a while now.

RASA SAYS:  THIS BEGS, FOR ME, A NEW DEFINITION OF “MASCULINE.”  I POSIT AS A MASCULINE MAN, FOR INSTANCE, SAINT REV. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.  THERE WAS A REAL MAN, WHO RISKED HIS LIFE TO SAVE OTHERS, AND GAVE HIS LIFE AS JESUS DID.  I READ HIS BOOK “THE STRENGTH TO LOVE,” WHICH WAS ABOUT LOVING THOSE IN SPITE OF THE FACT THEY BOMB YOUR HOUSE.  HE KNEW THE MEANING OF LOVE, HE WAS STRONG.  THAT’S A REAL MAN, OR A REAL WOMAN.  BULLIES ARE NOT REAL MEN, THEY ARE COWARDS, THEY ARE WEAK, CRUEL, AND THEY WILL BE REMOVED AWAY LIKE “THE CHAFF WHICH THE WIND BLOWETH AWAY”.  THEY ARE ALL BLUFF AND BLUSTER, BUT IN ETERNAL LIFE, THEY HAVE NO SUBSTANCE EXCEPT BURNING IN HELL.

AJAX SAYS:  Indeed, bullies have what is now known as "toxic masculinity", which is detrimental to everyone, and they are also cowards.  They are certainly not real men!

We can see this in the way male animals behave in the rutting season.  Every spring animals like bulls, rams and stags fight each other for dominance and access to females.  In these fights the winner takes all, the biggest and strongest males gain access to all females, while the weaker ones get zero.  A successful stag is not only bigger and stronger, but aggressive, ruthless and selfish.  Sharing with other stags is not an option; there can be only one winner who takes everything for himself.

RASA SAYS:  YES, INDEED, GOOD ANALOGY.  HOWEVER, I TAKE NOTE THAT ANIMALS KILL BY THEIR INSTINCT, TAKE HAREMS THROUGH VIOLENCE, BUT THERE IT ENDS.  HUMAN MALES ARE NOT ANIMALISTIC, BUT “SUBHUMAN,” AS THEY NOT ONLY FOLLOW INSTINCTS BUT THEY ARE SENSELESSLY SADISTIC.  ANIMALS DO NOT RAPE TINY ONE DAY OLD BABIES (AND MANY ARE KILLED) OR SMALL INFANTS….THEY DO NOT PLAN MURDER, THEY DO NOT DO “GENOCIDES.”  THEY DO NOT, IN ORDER TO GAIN PLUNDER, WIPE OUT THOUSANDS OR HOPE TO MURDER MILLIONS.  THEY DO NOT USE THEIR MINDS TO CREATE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION SUCH AS ATOM BOMBS, INVENTION OF AIDS PUT SECRETLY INTO VACCINES; THEY DO NOT PLAN TO MICROCHIP MILLIONS AND USE THEM AS SLAVES, THEY DO NOT CREATE CONCENTRATION CAMPS WITH OVENS READY TO EVAPORATE PEOPLE AT 2,500 DEGREES.  THEY DO NOT SKIN OTHER ANIMALS ALIVE TO GET PAID FOR THEIR PELTS.  THEY DO NOT PLAN FRANKENSTEIN CROPS LIKE GMO’S NOR DO THEY PLAN TO MAKE HEALTHY FOODS ILLEGAL.  HUMAN MALES HAVE TAKEN THIS INSTINCT TO THE POINT OF DEMONIC SUCH AS HAS NEVER EXISTED – THAT IS WHY MOTHER GOD IS RENDERING HUMAN MALES EXTINCT.

AJAX SAYS:  Very well-said, Rasa.  Indeed, sub-human or demonic is the best way to describe such evil and sadistic behavior that goes way, way beyond natural instincts.  And even many of those who are not so extreme are still willing to lie, cheat, steal, and even kill for filthy lucre.

We see the same in patriarchal societies.  The vast majority of the wealth and power of any country is possessed by a small minority of people.  Like rutting stags, the winner takes all, while the losers, the poor, get “the crumbs from the rich man’s table”.  Men, also like stags, are violent, because the boundaries of any country are decided by war.  For this reason, all countries have to have a strong military against invasion.

AJAX SAYS:  There are in fact more than enough resources in the world for everyone on this planet to have a decent standard of living, yet poverty and extreme inequality remain.  Why?  Patriarchy features winner-take-all economics, and reverse Robin Hood economics.  Rob from the poor, give to the rich, and torpedo what's left of the middle class until there are only two classes left:  master, and serf.  And plenty of violence and war, which enriches the oligarchs.

In contrast, as the late great Buckminster Fuller once noted, the feminine paradigm of leadership would reject men's outdated, inane, and insane self-fulfilling prophecy that war and scarcity are somehow inevitable.

Until then, mechaninzation is no match for the Machiavellian machinations of the moneyed elites--most of them MEN.

RASA:  IT IS A PATTERN.  UNTIL AND UNLESS WOMEN TAKE OVER COMPLETELY THIS WILL GO ON AS IF BUT HALF THE WORLD IS PATRIARCHAL, THE OTHER HALF HAS TO HAVE ARMIES TO PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM THEIR VIOLENCE.

AJAX SAYS:  Very true.  Certainly, abolishing the military entirely would be very naive and foolish so long as other countries remain patriarchal and maintain their own militaries.  Though in the USA, we can certainly downsize by cutting our "defense" spending in half and we would still have the strongest fighting force in the world.  Because currently it is not used so much for defense, as it is wars of aggression for plunder and empire, to enrich the psychopathic oligarchs at the top.  See "War Is A Racket" by Major General Smedley Butler, truly a must-read for everyone. 

In any patriarchal society – where men dominate – we have the rule of force, aggression and violence.  If “masculine” people rule our world, then off course it is going to be a brutal where “might is right”. If we want a loving, caring world, then the only way to achieve this is to be ruled by loving and nurturing women.
The abuse of women and children is going to happen because they are smaller and weaker than fully grown men. Men use can use their greater size and strength to get what they want from smaller and weaker people.  The psychiatrist Sigmund Freud hinted at this in his Oedipus complex theory, where the son wants to kill his own father, and possess his mother.  The actual reason for this is probably that the son was being abused by the father and hates him.  He also wants to protect his mother from abuse by the father, but Freud wasn’t allowed to say this.  The tragedy of this is that the son, when he grows up, is likely to treat his own wife and children in exactly the same way.
Freud did write a paper on the physical and sexual abuse children suffered by their fathers and other male relations, but this paper was censored.  To save his career, Freud no longer posited the theories but only hinted at them.  Since then, things have changed with the rise of feminism.  Women are now able to assert themselves and take more control over the children.  As the result, men who beat their wives and physically/sexually abuse their children can now be sent to prison.  As women gained power, children were protected from male abuse.

RASA SAYS:  EXCELLENT POINT.  UNTIL WOMEN ARE EMPOWERED, THEY ARE LIMITED AS TO WHAT THEY CAN DO.  WHEN WOMEN GO TO THE JUDICIAL JUSTICE SYSTEM, IT IS POLITICIZED AGAINST THEM, IN FAVOR OF MEN.  I HAVE BEEN THEIR VICTIM.  WHEN A WOMAN IS RAPED, THEY BLAME THE WOMAN.  WHEN A CHILD IS RAPED, THEY REALLY DON’T CARE.  IF ALL THE MEN WHO RAPE WOMEN AND CHILDREN WERE PUT INTO PRISON, PROBABLY HALF OF ALL MALES WOULD BE INCARCERATED.  MALES STICK UP FOR OTHER MALES.  THE MALE POLICE PERSUADE WOMEN TO DROP CHARGES.  MALE DA’S WON’T PROSECUTE CRIMINALS FOR INJURING OR RAPING WOMEN – IT HAPPENED TO ME TWICE.  THIS IS CHANGING, BUT IT STILL EXISTS.  IN MANY COUNTRIES, WOMEN HAVE NO RIGHTS.  THEY ARE SLAVES AND THEY ARE SAVAGED.  LOOK AT THE THEOCRATIC MUSLIM COUNTRIES.
OBVIOUSLY, ALL THE STATISTICS PROVE WOMEN ARE RISING, MEN ARE FALLING.  BUT IT IS THE WESTERN WOMEN THAT ARE RISING, AND THEY WILL HAVE TO PICK UP THE REST OF THE WOMEN IN OPPRESSED COUNTRIES.  IT WILL TAKE TIME.  WE WILL DO IT.

AJAX SAYS:  Indeed, having male leaders in charge of prosecuting male violence against Women and children, is like the fox guarding the henhouse.  The "good ol' boy" network is all too real, as is the victim-blaming mentality.  Things are slowly but surely improving in that regard, with significant declines in rape, domestic violence, and child abuse statistics since the early 1990s, but we still have a very long way to go before we are anywhere close to a truly "civilized" society.  Women really need to take over.  Yesterday.

The more males dominate a country, the more violent it becomes, as women, children and other men suffer violence, rape and abuse. In such a brutal world we end up with psychopaths running everything, as they are the most vicious and brutal.
An example of this would be Saddam Hussein, who ruled Iraq from 1979 to 2003.  He became the leader as being a psychopath and had no qualms about killing or torturing people.  In the eyes of many this made him a strong leader.  In fact, people now claim that the people of Iraq suffer more from violence, since he was deposed by the USA, than while he was in power.  This is because without a strong brutal leader, in this extreme patriarchal county, law and order has broken down.  The whole of history is full of leaders like this, who take power and hold on to it, through violence and brutality.
Unfortunately, psychopaths not only exist in extreme patriarchal countries but in more moderate, democratic countries.  In their book, “Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work”, by Paul Babiak, Ph.D., and Robert Hare, Ph.D.  They point that in business, psychopaths are far more likely to be successful.  The reason is that they have the ‘right’ qualities to succeed in a male dominated world.  To quote. –
“Several abilities – skills, actually – make it difficult to see psychopaths for who they are. First, they are motivated to, and have a talent for, ‘reading people’ and for sizing them up quickly. They identify a person’s likes and dislikes, motives, needs, weak spots, and vulnerabilities… Second, many psychopaths come across as having excellent oral communication skills. In many cases, these skills are more apparent than real because of their readiness to jump right into a conversation without the social inhibitions that hamper most people… Third, they are masters of impression management; their insight into the psyche of others combined with a superficial – but convincing – verbal fluency allows them to change their situation skillfully as it suits the situation and their game plan.”
This doesn’t only apply to businessmen; you only have to look at successful politicians to see the same thing.  A politician in a patriarchal system has to be able to appear on TV and tell lies without any hint of shame or embarrassment.  This means that being a psychopath is a big advantage in patriarchal politics.
Men off course invent all sorts of excuses to justify why we live in a world of injustice and violence.  Patriarchal religions like to blame the Devil for all the harm men do.  The big problem with this idea is that if God has created everything, then he made the Devil as well.  So why would God make a person like the Devil, who opposes him?  Religion also tries to blame women as well, in spite of the fact women are far less violent and far more caring than men.

RASA SAYS:  MY OPINION OF THE DEVIL AND SATAN IS THE ORIGIN IS MEN, IT COMES FROM THEIR PSYCHE, THEIR ID.  THEY HAVE UNLEASHED THE MILLIONS OR BILLIONS OF DEMONS ON THIS PLANET.  IT COMES FROM THEIR LOWER CHAKRAS AND INSTINCTS.  BUT THEY ARE WORSE THAN ANIMALS, THEY ARE SUBHUMAN, AS I ALREADY SAID.  IT IS NOT ALIENS, IT’S HUMAN MEN.  IF IT WAS ALIENS, WOMEN MIGHT BE AFFECTED – BUT THEY ARE NOT.  WHY ONLY MEN?  THE ALIENS ARE THE FALL GUY, THE EXCUSE, THEY ALWAYS HAVE AN EXCUSE.  THEY TRY TO USE ANIMALS AS EXCUSES, THAT WE ARE VIOLENT AS THEY ARE.  BUT OUR CLOSEST COUSINS ARE THE BONOBOS.

AJAX SAYS:  That makes sense.  According to Paul Levy and Jack D. Forbes, it is the "wetiko" mind-virus, the parasite of the mind and cancer of the soul.  Essentially the same thing as Satan and demons.

CONSIDER THAT, WILLIAM BOND.  INDEED THERE ARE BULLS AND STAGS.  BUT OUR GENEOLOGY IS CLOSEST TO BONOBOS.  THEY ARE MATRIARCHAL, THEY ARE HORNY, FRIENDLY, THEY SOLVE ALL CONFLICTS BY TOUCHING AND FEELING.  THE MOTHERS RULE THE FAMILY AND SOCIETY, AND THEY ARE STRONG, AND THEY POSTURE, BUT THERE IS NO WAR.  WHEN MALES INTIMIDATE FEMALES, THEY ARE MOBBED AND PREVENTED BY SEVERAL FEMALES, THEY CANNOT DOMINATE.

AJAX SAYS:  Indeed, "make love, not war" is essentially how the bonobos live.  That, and like the Robin Morgan quote, "sisterhood is powerful".  We can really learn a lot from them.

Science tries to justify men’s selfishness and violence onto “evolution”.  They claim that the violence of male animals is “survival of the fittest”; where the strongest and fittest males get to breed the next generation of animals.  They totally ignore the female’s role in evolution.  The fact is that the mother gives birth and cares for the young, and this is a far more important role in the survival of any species, than what males do.

RASA SAYS:  WHAT A BRILLIANT POINT WILLIAM HAS MADE, THAT EVOLUTION IS NOT JUST ABOUT MEN, AS MEN WANT US TO BELIEVE.  THE BEHAVIOR OF THE FEMALE WITH HER OFFSPRING IS MORE IMPORTANT!

AJAX SAYS:  Brilliant indeed, as usual, William!  You really hit the proverbial nail on the head.  Even Darwin himself was apparently not a Social Darwinist at all.
 
Conspiracy theories try to blame secret societies like the Freemasons, the Illuminati or even alien reptiles for the ills of our world.  The rich tend to blame the poor and the poor blame the rich, but few people will acknowledge the fact that as it is men who are ruling our world, then the problem must be male rulers.

RASA SAYS:  ABSOLUTE LOGIC, ONCE AGAIN, OF WILLIAM BOND.

AJAX SAYS:  BINGO.  Psychopaths/sociopaths are completely ruthless since they have no conscience, and since the patriarchal paradigm rewards ruthlessness and aggression, then psychopaths/sociopaths will be the ones who inevitably rise to the top under male rule.

It must be obvious that any system that puts psychopaths in leadership positions is a bad arrangement.  Yet, this is what patriarchy does all the time.  Men are naturally aggressive and competitive, and this is not a real problem if they are kept under control.  Unfortunately, when men rule our world the most violent, aggressive or devious men end up in positions of power.

RASA SAYS:  SURE, IF WILLIAM BOND OR JESUS CHRIST RULED OUR SOCIETY WE’D HAVE A PEACEFUL AND LOVING WORLD.

AJAX SAYS:  True.  And Ajax the Great as well.

Patriarchy also breeds psychopaths.  It has been discovered that many psychopaths had appalling childhoods.  A case in point would be Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Saddam Hussein – all of whom were beaten mercilessly as children.  Extreme patriarchal cultures encourage this, as they claim that abuse, “toughens up” boys and turns them into ‘real men’.  Certainly turning a man into a psychopath makes him a good soldier, as he can kill without mercy.  A more ordinary man is not such a good soldier, as he has qualms about killing the ‘enemy.’

AJAX SAYS:  So very true, William!  And you can add Pol Pot to that list (by his ruthless teachers) as well.  It seems that "beating the devil out of 'em" is really more like beating the devil INTO 'em, which is what the sinister agenda of the demonic patriarchy really wants to do to turn boys, and thus men, into cannon fodder and "Good Germans" at best, and subhuman demonic zombie killers at worst, to do the bidding of the psychopathic oligarchs at the top. 

RASA SAYS:  GOOD POINT.  BEING BRUTAL AND VIOLENT TOWARD MEN MAKES THEM SO, AND THEREFORE, OUR WORLD ENCOURAGES VIOLENCE THROUGH ALL MEDIA; GLORIFIES IT.  THEY HAVE EXCUSES FOR THIS AS “ENTERTAINMENT,” AND “FREEDOM OF SPEECH,” BUT IT’S MORE THAN THAT.  THEY WANT TO BREED DEMONS – MEN WITH NO FEELINGS WHO KILL WITHOUT MERCY.

If we do not want to be ruled by psychopaths then the obvious solution is for women to rule our world.    It is known that psychopaths can be created by extreme abuse, and in a patriarchal society where women are physically smaller and weaker than the average male, they are far more likely to suffer abuse of all kinds.  Yet, in-spite of this, there are still far less female psychopaths then male.

RASA SAYS:  ANOTHER GOOD POINT THAT I FIRST HEARD FROM WILLIAM BOND.  THE SAME ABUSE/VIOLENCE ON WOMEN DOES NOT ENGENDER THE SAME REACTION FROM WOMEN AS IT DOES MEN.  IT’S THE DIFFERENCE IN THE BRAIN, THE INSTINCT.  WOMEN HAVE A STRONGER INSTINCT TO GIVE LIFE, MEN LESS SO; THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE THE PROTECTORS SO THEY HAVE MORE VIOLENT TENDENCIES; BUT THESE MUST BE TEMPERED AND GUIDED RIGHTLY, NOT RUN AMUCK.

AJAX SAYS:  I am not sure how much of this is nature versus nurture, but I would hazard a guess that it is a mixture of both.  Genetics loads the gun, environment pulls the trigger.

So it makes sense for us to be ruled by caring and nurturing females rather than aggressive males.  We can see all over the world the more women are oppressed the more violent societies become.  But in countries where women are empowered society is peaceful.  When women are powerful, everyone benefits – bear in mind how brutal men are to other males.  Abusive fathers appear in elite families as well as poor – men such as Stalin, Hitler and Saddam were brutalized.
The only way to overcome all these problems is to have women take over.  It is true, there are caring men, but the psychos rise to the top — What psychopaths do is take acting lessons in how to appear loving and caring, then they are elected.

AJAX SAYS:  So true.  For thousands of years, the "good guys" have proven wholly incapable of defeating the bad guys on their own.  If us fellas could do it, we would have already done it long ago.  Even when a particularly notorious mass-murdering genocidal dictator like Hitler was defeated, that was achieved with the help of another, equally evil dictator, Stalin, who only gained strength afterwards and subsequently turned against the Allies after we no longer had a common enemy in the Nazis.  Only Women can truly defeat all of the bad guys for good.

RASA SAYS:  YOU CAN SEE LIARS ON TOP OF ALL GOVERNMENTS PRETENDING TO BE HELPING PEOPLE, AND THE PEOPLE BELIEVE THEIR LIES.  IT HAS HAPPENED NUMEROUS TIMES IN HISTORIES.  TAKE KIND HEROD TELLING THE MAGI TO LET HIM KNOW WHERE JESUS IS BORN SO HE TOO, CAN GO WORSHIP HIM.  THEN HEROD SENDS OUT HIS SOLDIERS TO KILL ALL THE BOYS UNDER THE AGE OF TWO.  HE EVEN DUPED THE WOMEN TO BRING THE CHILDREN TO HIS HEADQUARTERS SO THEY COULD BE FETED – THEY BROUGHT THEM ALL DECKED OUT IN GARLANDS OF FLOWERS, WHERE THE SOLDIERS STABBED AND SPEARED THEM TO DEATH.  AND WHAT HAPPENED TO HEROD AND ALL THESE MALE LEADERS WHO KILL SO MANY PEOPLE?  THEY GET WHAT THEY DESERVE EVENTUALLY BUT USUALLY ON EARTH, THEY, LIKE THE GODFATHER, DIE OF OLD AGE.  BUT THE INNOCENT ARE KILLED.  SO MUCH FOR JUSTICE ON EARTH, CERTAINLY DOESN’T EXIST IN A PATRIARCHAL WORLD.

AJAX SAYS:  They give with one hand, and they take with the other.  And they take plenty of lives in the process.

Yes, there are ruthless and deceiving women as well, but not in the same numbers as men.  Women have a powerful maternal instinct and once this instinct is activated then she not only wants to love and care for children of her own, she has the same desire to care for other people’s children, to look after the sick, old people and animals.  If we look at violence, we find that men commit over 99% of all acts of violence.  The reason is that because as women bring life to our world and want to nurture it, so it is harder for women to be cruel and uncaring for others than with men.
The competitive and aggressive instincts of men make them totally unsuitable to rule our world; they instigate conflict, war and injustice.  The maternal/ nurturing instincts of women enable them to run the family and the world – A world ruled by women would be fair, loving and caring.
by William Bond…..comments Rasa Von Werder….. 4 30 14

RASA SAYS:  LET ME JUST ADD HERE THAT ALL THE STATISTICS – EDUCATIONAL AND EMPLOYMENT WISE, ARE POINTING TO WOMEN RISING, MEN FALLING BEHIND.  THE FUTURE IS WOMEN, IT IS MATRIARCHY.  HOLD ON, KEEP PRAYING AND BELIEVING, WOMEN WILL RULE THE WORLD, MEN WILL FALL.  THEY ARE GOING EXTINCT.  THEIR OWN ACTIONS HAVE BROUGHT DEATH UPON THEM.

FINAL THOUGHTS:  Can I get an AMEN?  So very true indeed.  We are all ruled by an oligarchy of a few hundred to a few thousand cold-blooded psychopaths and sociopaths at the top.  And that is the logical conclusion of patriarchy, basically.  Worse, even if they are deposed, these evil villainaire rulers will ultimately return if we don't stamp out the conditions that cause such evil to rise to power in the first place.  Thus the better half of humanity, Women, must rise up and take over once and for all, Goddess willing.  Only then will there ever be true peace on Earth.

What better time than now?

Patriarchy Has A Kill Switch, And We Already Know What It Is

(Original version of this article from 2020 can be found here)

Author Yuri Zavorotny wrote a great article four years ago for Medium, in which he articulates something that we all intuitively know (but often don't want to say out loud) about the patriarchy and how to end it.  After first establishing that patriarchy is inherently evil (and thus cannot be redeemed), he then goes on about what holds it all together.  This thing that holds the entire construct all together is its sine qua non and thus is it's own Achilles' heel, and that thing is control of female sexuality, and the primary tool used to control that is slut-shaming.  That is, the shaming of Women for expressing their sexuality in the way they choose.  And thus the "kill switch" is to put an end to this utterly toxic and outmoded practice of slut-shaming.

Wait, what?  There is still slut-shaming in 2023?  Absolutely.  It has diminished somewhat since the (largely male-defined) "sexual revolution" half a century ago, to be sure, but it is still there. The double standard still exists, and it has in fact become more of a double bind in which Women are expected to be "sexy" (as defined by males) but not sexual by their own definition.  And ending it is thus the unfinished business of both feminism and the real sexual revolution for Women.

(That's not the only double bind here, there is also the historical one in which Women are expected to both obey men as well as be the "gatekeepers" of sex, with no way to opt out of either contradictory requirement.)

As Yuri Zavorotny himself says:

So here is our kill switch: we stop telling women when, where and with whom she is allowed to get involved romantically. Her body, her choice. And she is perfectly capable of making it a responsible choice, thank you very much.

And lest anyone misunderstand his words, read too much into it, or try to put words in his mouth:

NOTE: This is not to suggest that anyone should change their own behavior. We do whatever we are comfortable with. That, of course, includes staying monogamous, still a perfectly valid choice. But it can not be justified as a moral choice anymore -- rather, it is a personal preference.

Female sexuality (or more accurately, female-defined sexuality) is an extremely powerful force to be reckoned with, which is why the patriarchy has gone out of its way to suppress it (and/or supplant it with male-defined sexuality).  As I have noted before, the suppression of Women's sexuality was not entirely about maintaining control over the male bloodline (though that was originally a major part of it), but more generally about power and control over Women directly, as well as over other men indirectly via artificial scarcity.  Let that sink in for a moment. 

In a similar vein, patriarchy's favorite brainchild, capitalism, needs scarcity (whether real or artificial) to function.  That is how the oligarchs control the serfs.  And the kill switch of capitalism is thus to give it the one thing it cannot surivive--abundance.  The analogy should be apparent now.

Ending slut-shaming will not end patriarchy overnight, of course, but is nonetheless necessary for it to end sooner rather than later.  And if we wait until we return to full-blown Matriarchy before liberating Women's sexuality, we will never be ready, as Women's sexual liberation is a key step on the path to Matriarchy.  That is, if we make the perfect the enemy of the good, we ultimately end up with neither.

Furthermore, as I have noted in another article, any attempt at a reactionary "sexual counterrevolution" is of course doomed to backfire and ultimately fail to benefit Women on balance.

One thing needs to be clear.  As hard as we fight for the right to say "yes" to sex, we must also fight twice as hard for the right to say "NO" as well.  The LAST thing we want is for sex of any kind to be perceived as mandatory, so enthusiastic and mutual consent must be a precondition for all sexual acts, period. And that is true for both Women and men, by the way.  Also, we must be careful not to fall in the trap of the "reverse double standard" that has become in vogue in some circles these days (Oprah and Dr. Phil, I'm looking at YOU!), in which men are the ones vilified for their sexuality while Women are ignored (if not celebrated) for doing the same exact things.  Doing so is a sure path to a sort of "reverse patriarchy", not the Matriarchy proper that we should be aiming for.  The same goes for a "reverse double bind" as well.

Put simply:  Women should have the absolute right to be as sexual--or not--as they themselves want to be, without the need for justification or apology to anyone, period.

So what are we waiting for?  Kill Switch Engage!  Let the planetary healing begin!

Female Empowerment Is Still Our Only Hope

Just a reminder to everyone that despite current events, or rather a fortiori because of current events, we need Female Empowerment more than ever before.  While a full-blown Matriarchy is still a while away and we seem to be heading into a new dark age of totalitarian technocracy (i.e. the so-called "Great Reset"), Women must never give up and let their hard-won progress thus far be eroded any further.  After all, all oligarchies, plutocracies, kleptocracies, and technocracies (or all of the above) are patriarchal at their core.  As a man, I obviously don't have nearly all of the answers, nor do I claim to truly know the details of how to do it, but what I do know in my heart of hearts is that only Women collectively can truly halt and reverse for good the utterly dark and dystopian future to which we are otherwise headed, Goddess willing.

Granted, perhaps it is better to think in terms of "protopia" rather than utopia, but otherwise the point still stands.

Now is NOT the time to sit on one's laurels, give up hope, or make the perfect the enemy of the good in any way.   Nor is it the time to take advice from fools, charlatans, mouthpieces of the oligarchy/technocracy/ patriarchy, or an even worse category:  the vile and demonic Phyllis Schlafly types who masquerade as feminists (or even as self-proclaimed Radical Feminists) but are really patriarchal to the core or otherwise throw other Women under the bus for their own worldly gains, often disguised as concern-trolling.  A good litmus test for that latter category is how they react to the works of the author Mark Regnerus, as anyone who agrees with his poisonous words are not really feminists and do not support genuine Female Empowerment.  Which by the way, is both individual AND collective empowerment, NOT an either/or. 

Bottom line, Women need to get into as many positions of power as possible, in as many places at as many levels as possible, as quickly as possible.  Time is running out.

So go forth and make old Buckminster Fuller proud!

(See also a previous article here as well for a more detailed discussion on the ultimate kill switch to smash the patriarchy.)

Why We Still Need A Universal Basic Income Guarantee Yesterday (Updated)

I have repeatedly noted before why any serious proposal for a pragmatic utopia would require some sort of unconditional Universal Basic Income (UBI) Guarantee for all.  (Note that the "U" itself also stands for "Unconditional", which is VERY important.)  At least as long as we still have a monetary system, of course, and it will be quite some time before money can be phased out completely.  And in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, the lockdowns, and their grisly social and economic aftermath, it is more crucial now than ever before, and will be for quite some time as well.  

To wit:

1. First and foremost, "It's payback time for Women".  Recently, a Woman named Judith Shulevitz wrote an op-ed titled thusly, arguing in favor of a Universal Basic Income Guarantee for all.  Her feminist argument for a UBI, which I agree 100% with, was that such a thing would provide long-overdue compensation for Women's unpaid work (i.e. housework and caregiving) that society currently takes for granted and considers a "free resource" for the taking.  As the saying goes, there are two kinds of work that Women do:  underpaid, and unpaid.  While that is true for some men as well, it is overwhelmingly true for Women.  Thus, her argument makes a great deal of sense overall, and I agree.  It is indeed LONG overdue.  And it applies a fortiori now in light of the fact that Women got the worst deal of all from the lockdown-induced job losses, the often triple burden for Mothers at home, the gnawing forced isolation from the support system of other Women, and the increased exposure to domestic violence during lockdown.  And they are still continuing (and will continue) to suffer from the aftermath long after the lockdowns are behind us.  Lockdown is patriarchy on crack, basically.
2. Men are becoming increasingly redundant in the long run due to technology, globalization, and the overall ascendancy of Women.  When men are no longer artificially propped up, they will fall--and the bigger they are, the harder they fall.  And this will only increase in the near future.  This is a potential ticking time-bomb that must be defused sooner rather than later.  Men become extremely dangerous creatures under either of two conditions:  1) when they have too much power relative to Women, and/or 2) when they are desperate for money.  Ever see the 1996 film Fargo? Indeed, a Universal Basic Income is one of the best ways to tackle the second one.  Again, it only applies a fortiori now.
3. A UBI is far more efficient in theory and practice than much of what currently passes for a social safety net these days, and would have far less bureaucracy.  No means tests, no discrimination, no playing God.  It's simply a basic human right, period.  And it would be far less costly in the long run.
4. As Buckminster Fuller famously noted, there are more than enough resources for everyone to live like a millionaire with today's technology.  And he said this back in the 1970s, mind you.  And the specious notion that everybody and their mother must "work for a living" is not only outdated, but is also seriously classist, ableist, and ageist, and by extension indirectly sexist and racist as well.  The fact that human beings, unlike literally every other species on Earth, somehow must PAY to merely LIVE on the planet on which they were born is now totally contrived and socially constructed, and is in fact an egregious Crime Against Nature.
5. Poverty is a razor-sharp, double-edged sword, spiritually speaking. Being attached to riches is clearly counter to spirituality, but then again, so is being attached to poverty. Either way, it's the *attachment* that is the problem.  And poverty today is largely if not entirely man-made via artificial scarcity.
6. We would all be better off on balance, spiritually and otherwise, if material poverty were eradicated--and a UBI is the most efficient way to do so. As William Bond (and others) noted, with today's technology that is certainly doable, but for the greed of the oligarchs at the top who control the system. And that in turn is a result of patriarchy, given how men tend to see war and scarcity as inevitable, so they create a self-fulfilling prophecy as a result.
7. With an unconditional UBI instead of means testing or other conditions, gone will be the perverse incentives that exist under the current system that trap too many people in poverty today.
8. Negative liberty and positive liberty are NOT opposites, but rather two sides of the same coin.  Indeed, one cannot be truly free if one is systematically denied the basic necessities of life.  And truly no one is free when others are oppressed in any way. 
9. Inequality, at least when it is as extreme as it is today, is profoundly toxic to society and makes the looming problems/crises of climate change and ecological overshoot that much more difficult to solve.  This is over and above the effects of poverty alone.  And a UBI can dramatically reduce both socio-economic inequality as well as absolute material poverty.  (And when funded by an Alaska-style tax on fossil fuels, it can also double as a Steve Stoft or James Hansen-style carbon tax-and-dividend as well.)
10. We consume and waste a ludicrous amount of (mostly fossil-fuel) energy in the so-called "developed" world, and much of that wasteful consumption can be curtailed simply by making it so no one has to "work for a living" unless one really wants to.  Just think of all the energy spent (and commuting to and from) unnecessary work at a job you hate, to buy stuff you don't need, to impress people you don't even like.  A UBI could thus greatly reduce our carbon and overall ecological footprint in the long run.
11. And finally, one should keep in mind that, as Carol Brouillet has noted, the literal and original meaning of the word "community" is "free sharing of gifts".  What we currently have now under patriarchy/kyriarchy is more of a pseudo-community in that regard.   And that needs to change. Yesterday.  The exchange economy of capitialist patriarchy has failed us, and we need to rediscover and re-create the gift economy in its place.  A UBI will make the transition much smoother and more peaceful that it would otherwise be.  (Some ultra-purist radfems may disagree of course, but they are in the minority even among the radical feminist community.)

Perhaps Bucky's other prediction, that Women would take over the world, is a prerequisite for his vision to be fulfilled?   Honestly, it can't happen soon enough!

In other words, it would be a win-win-win situation for literally everyone but the 0.01% oligarchs at the top.  So why aren't we doing this yesterday?  Because that would make far too much sense.  To quote Buckminster Fuller:

We should do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in ten thousand of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian Darwinian theory he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living.

In fact, one could argue that two of the most toxic, outdated, and specious ideas ever conceived by the patriarchy (aside from the central doctrine of male supremacy itself and the entire "dominator" model, of course) are that "everybody and their mother must work for a living" and that "everybody must procreate."  And both are now literally KILLING this very planet that gives us life.  Thus, on balance, a Universal Basic Income Guarantee for all is a good idea regardless.  Again, it's a win-win-win situation for everyone but the oligarchs.  And the only real arguments against it are paternalistic and/or sadistic ones, which really means there are no good arguments against it in a free and civilized society.  

(See also the TSAP's Q&A page, "Why UBI".)

Of course, for UBI to work properly, it would have to be totally unconditional with NO strings attached, period.  The Davos gang's (per)version of same, in contrast, will have plenty of strings attached, and will likely utilize Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) instead of cash, and tied to CCP-style "social credit scoring", and a critical mass of people will fall for it absent any alternative, so we need to beat them to it with a genuine cash UBI with no strings attached BEFORE they do it.  They will NOT own us, and they will NOT be happy!

So what are we waiting for? Let the planetary healing begin!

The Great Trade

Part 1:

WOMAN:  Men only want one thing.  I mean, they are completely governed by their "Finger Eleven", if you catch my drift.

MAN:  "If I traded it all, if I gave it all away, for one thing...." (to quote lyrics by the band, literally named Finger Eleven).

WOMAN:  Keys to the kingdom, so we can finally reclaim our rightful place as the new leaders of the free world?

MAN:  Your terms are acceptable.

Part 2:

MODERN-DAY PHARISEE:  Not so fast, little lady.  For what shall it profit a woman, to gain the world and lose her soul?

WOMAN:  Excuse you, but us Women can multitask just fine, thank you very much.  You must be projecting.

MODERN-DAY PHARISEE:  A man cannot serve two masters.

WOMAN:  True, a MAN cannot serve two masters.  But a master can have many servants.  Now go make me a sandwich!

MODERN-DAY PHARISEE:  (Speechless)

The Four Biggest Casualties Of (Gender) War

Every war has casualites, and the 7000 year long gender war (which we call "patriarchy" to make it sound nicer) is certainly no exception.  There are many such casualties, and the four biggest ones are as follows:

1. The first casualty is TRUTH.  And that is not just a clichéd statement, but is practically axiomatic.  If people really knew the truth, the continuity of the war will be called into question.  So the truth is deliberately hidden and replaced with lies, half-truths, and omissions whenever possible.  Eventually it leads to a "post-truth" society and world, in which the truth becomes essentially irrelevant in what passes for discourse.
2. The second casualty is INNOCENCE.  Not as a euphemism for ignorance (for which there is still plenty), but in the most general sense, which includes the capacity for trust.  And that is a result of the first casualty, truth. Not to mention all of the actual and horrific atrocities of the war itself as well.  This results in jadedness, bitterness, and cynicism, which in the case of the gender war seriously poisons the relationship between Women and men, and also vitiates what remains of the sisterhood between Women as well.
3. The third casualty is LOVE.  And not just in the romantic sense, but in the most general sense to include all forms of love, all the way down to and including friendship.  In fact, friendship is probably the biggest casualty of all.  When both primary genders regard the other as being inherently dangerous/evil and needing to be controlled, that kinda precludes all but the most superficial and/or authoritarian relationships between the two.
4. And the fourth and final casualty is HUMANITY, in both senses of the word.

Thus, the gender war, like all wars, ultimately hurts everyone and thus needs to end yesterday.  And the only way to end it (without the entire planet being killed) is for us fellas to, paraphrasing the late Emperor Hirohito, "accept the unacceptable" and surrender to Women.  The sooner we finally cap the game, the better.  So what are we waiting for?

Viva La....Counterrevolution? Why "Reactionary Feminism" Is An Anachronistic Oxymoron That Will NOT Help Women

Some on the interwebs are recently claiming that a "sexual counterrevolution" is afoot, one that is ostensibly led by Women on both sides of the Atlantic (USA and UK) who are fed up with the sexual revolution as it were.  From Mary Harrington (who apparently coined the term, as well as the term "reactionary feminism" with which she herself identifies) to Louise Perry to Christine Emba to Katherine Dee to Evie Magazine to a few others, including some men as well, there does appear to be a trend back towards sex-negativity, or at least against the perceived excesses of sexual liberation.

The sexual revolution, like the industrial revolution, was a mixed bag overall.  Contrary to what some believe, it was neither an unalloyed good nor an unmitigated evil.  But overall, it was on balance a good thing I think.  Yes, even for Women too.  If anything, it is still unfinished to this day.  It is not a simple case of "men won and Women lost", just like the industrial revolution was not merely a simple case of "bourgeoisie (capitalist class) won and proletariat (working class) lost".  Sexual liberation does NOT need to be a zero-sum game at all.  Only the male-defined sexuality of patriarchy is truly a zero-sum game, which has existed long before the sexual revolution.  Female-defined sexuality is not.

As for the idea that there should be some sort of counterrevolution, as author Louise Perry advocates in The Case Against The Sexual Revolution, well, some good rebuttals from many different angles can be found here, here, and here.  Even Christine Emba's new book, Rethinking Sex: A Provocation (the thesis of which is neither  new nor particularly provocative) can be criticized here, here, and here as well.  These rebuttals for both, all written by Women, are far, far better than anything I could ever write.  And while these two authors occasionally make some decent points here and there, they are both quite heavy on problems and light on solutions.  Emba's solutions are far too vague and anodyne, while Perry's are far too retro (if not extremely non-starters as well), to even be considered solutions.  

But truly the only real solution is the one that these authors don't seem to consider:  MATRIARCHY.  It's like they are afraid to even utter the word, or something.  Not surprising, of course, given how utterly infantilizing and agency-denying some of their arguments are to Women in general.

It is true what they say that mere consent should be the floor, not the ceiling, of sexual ethics.  No argument from me there.  Even most sex-positive feminists would agree as well.  What Emba in particular calls "radical empathy" is also crucial, as well as respect, honesty, and basic human decency/dignity, of course.  But beyond that, their arguments really start to coast into confusion if not utter incoherence overall.  And the relatively short shrift they give to non-heterosexual folks (both Women and men), who they barely even acknowledge at all, also does the reader a serious disservice as well.

But back to Mary Harrington.  Her brand of "reactionary feminism" takes it a step further and apparently wants to roll back not only the sexual revolution, but also the industrial revolution as well, and possibly even the Enlightenment too.  The 1950s is apparently not traditional enough for her, as she quite literally seems to prefer....the 1450s.  (Riddle me this:  If that time period was so great, then why all the peasant revolts, in which revolutionary Women, eventually persecuted as "witches", played an outsized role?)  She is really quite the anti-modernist, it seems, and the title of her upcoming book, Feminism Against Progress, kinda says it all.  She comes dangerously close to sounding just like the Neoreactionary movement at times.  Oh, and she also denies that patriarchy ever even existed either.  Thus, her vague "solutions" would essentially preclude the only real solution of Matriarchy as well.  And yet she calls herself a feminist, go figure!

(To be fair, Harrington is not the first person to ever criticize the notion of "progress" either.  Christopher Ryan, co-author of Sex at Dawn, also wrote a sort-of sequel, Civilized to Death:  The Price of Progress, in which he also criticizes the unquestioned notion of progress, albeit from a different and clearly sex-positive angle, and with VERY different solutions compared to the reactionaries.  I triple-dog dare Harrington to debate him, lol.  But much like Lynn Saxon, author of an unconvincing rebuttal titled Sex at Dusk, she would probably just resort to cad-shaming and other ad hominem attacks.)

Oh, and finally, one of her most ridiculous articles ever is literally titled, "Middle Aged Women Don't Want Sex", and presumably that applies to Crones as well.  Somehow that sounds a bit like projection perhaps?  And besides, the legendary Guru Rasa Von Werder has clearly and famously debunked this utterly specious notion to be not only inaccurate, but almost a full 180 degrees wrong as well.

Thus, so-called reactionary feminism occupies that awkward space between where extreme sex-negative radical feminism and extreme sex-negative anti-feminism meet per Horseshoe Theory.  Much like how the far left and far right become dangerously close to each other as well.  It is essentially the worst of both extreme worlds, and its pied pipers should really be avoided like the plague and not discussed further.  Except insofar as sunlight is the best disinfectant, of course.

UPDATE:  Oh, and about those revolutionary Women of the 15th century, eventually persecuted as "witches", did you know that many of them believed in and practiced communal living and even (gasp) free love?  You know, the same things that are absolutely anathema to those self-proclaimed "reactionary feminists" discussed above?  According to the actual feminist Sylvia Federici, they apparently did.  So far from being the granddaughters of the "witches" they couldn't burn, today's reactionaries are more like the granddaughters, or at least ideological descendants, of the sellout Women who collaborated with the witch-hunters and threw their sisters under the bus.  That is true not just for these reactionaries, but also for all slut-shamers, SWERFs, forced-birthers, victim-blamers, and rape apologists as well--all of which being just a very short walk away from one another.

In fact, I decided to name this new-but-not-really-new virulent strain of reactionary pseudo-feminism "Serena Joy Syndrome", after the rather infamous character from Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale.  It fits perfectly. 

UPDATE 2:  New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg has a good response (if anodyne) to the sexual counterrevolutionaries.  Even if it is still not well-received by some of the counterrevolutionaries and reactionaries themselves, of course.

Roe v. Wade Has Fallen

Well, after nearly half a century, it actually happened:  the landmark Roe v. Wade decision has officially fallen.  Today the US Supreme Court struck it down completely.  Forced-birther Republicans are thus now emboldened to further ban or restrict abortion at the state level, as several states have already done recently.  That is, Women's hard-won reproductive rights are now in grave danger, and this goes WAY beyond abortion.  Undoubtedly, birth control and things like that will be next on the chopping block, and so on, and thus we are just a few steps away from Margaret Atwood's worst nightmare. In fact, Clarence Thomas himself implied as much, actually saying the quiet part out loud.

Add to this the fact that the recent lockdown-induced "recession" (more like depression) has actually hit Women harder than men and set back Women's progress by decades by dumping even more unpaid work on them at home, and the future looks even worse still.

Democrats in Congress are still looking to pass a bill that would codify Roe v. Wade into federal law, superseding the abortion bans in any state that attempts such bans.  But alas, success in that regard is far from guaranteed.

Horrible and ghastly as this overall prospect is, there is perhaps a silver lining, namely that it may spur Women to go on a Lysistrata-style sex strike.  This may be the final straw, and such a strike may be enough for Women to actually take over for good.  That is, what would otherwise take decades at best would be accelerated in a matter of weeks or months, Goddess willing.  Perhaps that is why She is allowing all of this parade of horribles to happen at all?

Of course, a sex strike is a short-term tactic, not a long-term strategy.  For the ultimate kill switch on how really smash the patriarchy for good in the long term please see a previous article here.  And interestingly, the late 19th century feminist Victoria Woodhull would have in fact supported both.

To be clear, I don't think any real feminists actually LIKE the practice of abortion.  It is in fact an unfortunate side effect of the patriarchy, as it is the patriarchy itself that effectively makes nearly all abortions necessary in the first place despite that very same patriarchy's pharisaical and hypocritical attempts to ban and restrict the practice.  In a future Matriarchal society, there would be very, very few abortions occurring even with no restrictions at all, as pregnancies would no longer be forced on Women and poverty would be effectively eradicated, thus eliminating the two biggest incentives for abortion.  But it is crystal clear that banning or unduly restricting abortion does far more harm than good on balance, as that only reduces the number of safe and legal abortions (for the non-rich).  Unsafe and illegal abortions would continue regardless.  So the very tiny left feminist wing of the anti-abortion movement (who is actually cheering for the new Texas law) really misses the point entirely.  And the sooner we fully abolish the "livestock model" of reproduction where Women are treated like brood mares (and men as work horses), the better we will all be.

In other words, Matriarchy is the real culture of life.  Patriarchy, on the other hand, is the cult(ure) of death.

Only Women Can Break The Cycle Of History

History, or more accurately, HIStory, has always seemed to occur in cycles.  Ascendancy and decline.  Collapse and rebirth.  Spring and fall.  Over and over again.  And with smaller cycles occurring as part of larger ones as well.  The modern meme about it goes like this:

Hard times create strong men.

Strong men create good times.

Good times create weak men.

Weak men create hard times.

And so on.  And if current events are any indication, we seem to be in the "weak men create hard times" stage, alas.  But the authors of this meme did not pull this out of the ether, rather, this idea of the cyclical nature of history is thousands of years old.  The ancient Greeks called it "Anacyclosis".

Per Wikipedia:

Anacyclosis states that three basic forms of "benign" government (monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy) are inherently weak and unstable, tending to degenerate rapidly into the three basic forms of "malignant" government (tyranny, oligarchy, and ochlocracy). [Ochlocracy = mob rule]

Polybius' sequence of anacyclosis proceeds in the following order: 1. monarchy, 2. kingship, 3. tyranny, 4. aristocracy, 5. oligarchy, 6. democracy, and 7. ochlocracy.  [And finally chaos, and then the cycle repeats with a new king emerging from the chaos...]

And then there is the "Tytler Cycle" (or "Fatal Sequence") as well.  The following quote, actually of somewhat unknown authorship, has nonetheless been attributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler sometime in either the late 18th or early 19th century, though occasionally it has been attributed to Alexis de Toqueville as well:

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.

These two paragraphs actually did not occur together until the 1970s, but the latter one is the one that stuck the most.  It can thus be summarized graphically as follows:

The first paragraph of course can be debunked by the theories of Monetary Sovereignty and Modern Monetary Theory, in that a government that issues and controls it's own sovereign currency cannot really go bankrupt unless they deliberately choose to, and thus loose fiscal policy per se need not result in a dictatorship.  In Venezuela, for example, dictatorship (and corruption) actually came first, well before their extremely loose fiscal policy.  Furthermore, Switzerland is the very closest thing to a truly direct democracy in the modern world, and interestingly the voters in 2016 actually rejected a Universal Basic Income (UBI) referendum.  And even Canada, arguably somewhat more democratic in practice than the USA (prior to 2020), had actually shrank the size of its government dramatically from 1990 to 2019 via fiscal austerity (which came at a heavy price), and barely any stimulus even during the Great Recession.  But the second paragraph is the one that is the real essence of the quote, regardless of what sort of governing system is in place.  And it seems to be true throughout history time and again.

And more recently, William Strauss and Neil Howe's generational theory also appears to dovetail with all of this.  And the ever-insightful Julius Ruechel observes how that cycle seems to occur every four generations, or roughly 80 years or so (making us due for a major crisis by 2020, being about 80 years since the Great Depression and its infamous segway into WWII).  This is, of course, a smaller cycle within larger ones like the ones mentioned above, but again it follows basically the same pattern.  A pattern that seems to be, for all intents and purposes, sooner or later, inevitable and written in stone.  So what is the underlying reason?

Thus once again, we return to the first meme, with the proper emphasis added this time:

Hard times create strong men.

Strong men create good times.

Good times create weak men.

Weak men create hard times.

And so on.  Now do you see why?  Because MEN are in charge, that's why.  Strong men and weak men are ultimately two sides of the same coin.  And thus only Women can finally break the cycle for good, by reclaiming their rightful place as the new leaders of the free world, Goddess willing.  And as they say, the rest will be HERstory.

Let the planetary healing begin!

Happy Mother's Day!

First, I would like to wish a Happy Mother's Day to all of the wonderful Mothers out there.  You are, after all, literally the reason why the human race even exists at all, despite the fact that the work you do is grossly undervalued in so many way by our twisted capitalistic and patriarchal society.  In other words, your beautiful feminine energy is essentially what keeps the rest of us alive.  

Thank you.

I would also like to note and lament how, for all the shallow platitudes America likes to throw around about "Mothers and apple pie", we are still a nation that perpetually continues to screw over Mothers and pregnant Women in so many ways.  Recently, Guru Rasa von Werder shared a poignant and in-depth article from Vox with us that illustrates the various ways in which that is true.  This article should be food for thought indeed.  Our patriarchal and capitalistic society clearly has a "cult of motherhood", in which the "ideal" of motherhood is so highly vaunted, worshipped even, but in practice actual Mothers themselves get about as much genuine respect as Rodney Dangerfield.  Both during and after pregnancy, so many Mothers are routinely discriminated against, overworked, underpaid, and even outright criminalized in many cases.  And meanwhile, there is to this day a powerful faction of mostly male politicians that is doing everything in their power to deny Women their right to choose whether or not to get (or stay) pregnant in the first place.  Indeed, the rank hypocrisy of our misogynistic and pharisaical system is so thick you could cut it with a knife.

Meanwhile, old Buckminster Fuller (who, not coincidentally, believed that Women should rule the world) must be spinning in his grave right now.  With today's technology and innovation, there is literally no legitimate reason why we as a society need "everybody and their mother" (literally!) to "work for a living" unless they really wanted to.  There are more than enough resources in the world for everyone on this planet to live like a millionaire, but the greedy oligarchs who control such resources apparently don't want to share.  Combined with the outdated scarcity mentality that men tend to favor (as opposed to the abundance mentality that Women tend to favor), those same oligarchs have also done everything in their power to sabotage any alternatives (i.e. free and renewable energy) to their own evil system that they force upon the rest of us.  So why make them even richer?

Additionally, just as we should "dispense with the absolutely specious notion that everybody needs to earn a living" (in Bucky's words), so too should we jettison the equally specious and outdated idea that everybody must procreate as though it were a civic duty.  Not only does today's technology make much useful human labor redundant, but the world is grossly overpopulated and will only get more so in the coming decades, and despite the abundance of the world's resources we are chewing through them like there is no tomorrow while destroying the planet.   And the main cause of that overpopulation is--wait for it--MEN.  Because they are the ones who, both historically and today, force, coerce, deceive, and/or brainwash Women to have kids that they otherwise would not want or are not yet ready for.  Men like to "get 'em while they're young" and then use them as serial breeding slaves, essentially, and all the euphemisms in the world do not change that fact.   It is really no coincidence that the two most effective (and ethical) ways to reduce overpopulation and excessively high birthrates are 1) female empowerment and 2) poverty reduction, while everything else is a mere sideshow.  Because when Women actually have a free and genuine choice on when or whether or not to reproduce, they usually make the right choices overall.  After all, they are the ones who have the most "skin in the game".  So let the planetary healing begin!

(And ICYMI, all of this now applies a fortiori in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.  Mothers have faced a triple burden thanks to all the lockdowns, school closures, job losses and stuff like that.)

MAMASTE

Can Female Power Save The Planet? Answered by William Bond

Can Female Power Save the Planet - answered by William Bond

(Comments by Rasa Von Werder and Ajax the Great)

Anyone who studies history will notice a familiar pattern, countries will try to solve disputes between them through warfare and sometimes even genocide.  Another common theme is that in all countries there is a large gap between rich and poor. Where most of the wealth of any country is in the hands of a small ruling elite while the majority of people are poor and powerless. 

This is so commonplace that people have accepted it as normal but many famous people have spoken out against wars, like Mahatma Gandhi, Oscar Wilde, John Lennon, Martin Luther King, Jr., Aldous Huxley, Leo Tolstoy, William Penn, Dalai Lama and Albert Einstein. 

But we don’t need to be as intelligent as Einstein to work out that warfare is a terrible idea. Modern warfare is even worse than in the past because more civilians die in modern wars than soldiers die on the battlefield. This is because in recent wars towns and cities are bombed from aircraft, killing women, children and old people. There is also the threat of nuclear weapons and the possible annihilation of civilisation. Yet in spite of this we still continue to have as many wars as we did centuries ago. 

There is also the problem of a vast gap between rich and poor where a small ruling elite has all the wealth and power and the common people are poor and powerless. Yet even when the people have had a revolution and the ruling elite were killed, like we see in the French and Russian revolutions. The new revolutionary governments have proven not to be any better than those they replaced, as the gap between rich and poor has continued as before. 

So why are problems like warfare and social justice insolvable?  The common explanation is found in Darwin’s theory of evolution which is summed up in the phrase, “the survival of the fittest”.  This comes from the observation of rutting males who fight each other to breed with females and so only the biggest, strongest and most aggressive males are able to do this. So the theory of evolution is only seen from the masculine point of view.

Darwin’s evolutionary theory was later turned into something called Social Darwinism which neatly explained why we always have wars and genocide and why there is such a wide gap between rich and poor. It seems that we have wars because like rutting males it is ‘natural’ for male rulers to fight each other for more wealth, power and territory. The same is true for class inequality, according to this theory, wealthy people are simply ‘fitter’ than poor people as they are cleverer and more capable and this is why they have more wealth and power.

{Rasa says:  There’s another obscenity afoot.  On Trinity Broadcasting, the Protestant venue, many of its preachers claim that ‘God wants us to have prosperity’ & to add insult to injury they say that those who gain the move money are favored by God, those who haven’t got it were not so.  This is grossly wrong – this is supposed to be a Christian Network – Jesus came to earth to teach poverty, sacrifice & love for others, not greed, wealth, money changing schemes & the like.  He did not hobnob with the rich, he ate with the poor & fraternized by those who were outcasts in society. }

{Ajax says:  These modern-day Pharisees have it completely backwards, basically.}

To quote Wikipedia on Social Darwinism.-

“Many such views stress competition between individuals in laissez-faire capitalism, while others, emphasizing struggle between national or racial groups, support authoritarianism, conservativism, right-wing politics, eugenics, racism, sexism, homophobia, imperialism and/or fascism.”

Social Darwinism got itself a bad name through it’s promotion of eugenics. Where its proponents called for disabled children to be aborted, killed or sterilised so they wouldn’t pass on their defective genes to the next generation. This concept was adopted by Nazi Germany who used these ideas not only justify war, but also the Holocaust to eliminate Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and anyone else the Nazi’s didn’t like. After the defeat of the Nazis in Second World War, very few people wanted to be associated with these ideas. 

{Ajax says:  It turns out that even Darwin himself did NOT believe in "Social Darwinism" as it were.  And he actually opposed eugenics, the selective breeding of human beings which is literally the opposite of natural selection, even though his cousin Francis Galton supported it. To quote Darwin, "If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin".  Very true indeed.}

But Darwinism still continue to change into more extreme ideas like the Killer Ape Hypothesis, which claimed that man evolve from ape to human by becoming a hunter and killer. Again this is used to justify war, violence and social inequality. 

Another idea like this is the, Selfish Gene Theory, which claims that genes, selfishly only care for their own survival and it is these selfish genes that will survive and reproduce. So according to this theory it is selfish genes that dictate the direction of evolution. So this is why we have warfare and social injustice because we are all selfish and only care about ourselves.  Although Richard Dawkins who invented the, Selfish Gene Theory, has never talked about eugenics he created a controversy when he publicly claimed that it was “immoral” for mothers to bring Down’s Syndrome children into the world.

{Ajax says:  Soft eugenics, basically.}

All these theories are invented by men and because of this, they leave out the female point of view. Anyone who studies female animals find that they are not driven by aggression or selfishness. Most females have a powerful desire to give birth and then care for their young until they are big enough to look after themselves. The ability of mothers to be able to do this, means she is the most important entity in the evolution of any species. This is because the role of males in reproduction is generally very brief and can be over in a minute. But life is created within the bodies of females and for human females this can take nine months. 

Females have to be very fit and healthy to be able to allow an infant to grow inside their bodies. Then she has to give birth, protect and suckle the infant(s) and and look after them until they grow to be adults. Some male animals like birds do play a role is feeding and caring for their young. But many male animals go off and leave the female to fend for herself. Some species like bears and tigers the male will even attack and eat the cubs, if the female is unable to fight them off. Some mother bears and tigers end up being killed by the males when doing this. 

Mothers are totally selfless in caring for her young and put their needs before her own. We find in human females, women will not only care for their own young but care for the young of other mothers. They will also care for the sick and elderly.  Richard Dawkins in his book “The Selfish Gene”, realised that caring mother was undermining this theory that we are all selfish and so changed the name of caring mothers to that of ‘bearers’. As he knew the caring aspect of women will undermine his theory.

{Rasa says:  I despised Richard Dawkins, & here is proof he deserved it.  Such a book is truly evil & for him to call women ‘bearers’ instead of Mothers goes back to the ancient Greek play ‘Oedipus’ where the author said the woman is not the mother of the child, but only an oven the child is baked in, in so many words.  It was only the man’s part that counted.  And of course, science has proven this to be absurd, as men cannot even reproduce, scientists say the are ‘parasites’ on the body of a woman & can only give her their DNA to reproduce.}

{Ajax says:  Indeed.  The only good thing about Richard Dawkins is the fact that that he coined the popular word "meme".  Yes, that was him.  That's it.  Big whoop!}

There have been many cases where animal females in the wild will care for the young of other mothers and even the young of other species. This is true of cuckoos who take advantage of maternal instincts of other female birds to trick them into unwittingly raising cuckoos chicks.  This is also documented in many cases of feral children. These are children who have been abandoned and left in the wild and have been brought up by female animals who have found them. In most cases it is wolves or dogs but there are cases of feral children being brought up by monkeys, bears, sheep, cattle and in one case, even ostriches.

{Rasa says:  I would like to see where I can witness this.  Is any of it on You tube?} 

As Evolutionists tell us, men have a powerful competitive and aggressive instincts and this is why we have wars, genocide and social injustice. Women on the other hand have a powerful maternal and nurturing instinct. So therefore if we want to eliminate wars and social injustice then the solution is obvious, we have to allow women to rule the world. 

The argument against this is that there have been many cases where female leaders of countries have gone to war. This is true, but in most cases she is the lone female leader in a all male patriarchal government and is forced to defend her country against an aggressive patriarchal government. There has never been a case of an all female matriarchal government fighting another matriarchal government.- Though it has to be admitted knowledge of matriarchal governments have been suppressed in patriarchal history books, so we don’t have any knowledge of this. 

As feminists discovered in the 20th century when they tried to get their male children to play with dolls and their female children to play with toy, cars, planes and guns it didn’t work. Women don’t have the same interest in war, guns and violence as men do. So matriarchal governments are far more likely to talk over any dispute with other matriarchal governments. 

The same is also true about the gap between rich and poor. As mentioned before, women care a lot about children and therefore a matriarchal government wouldn’t want the children of the country they rule to live in poverty and ignorance. So they will do their best to lift all children out of poverty and in so doing will also help the children’s parents, as well as making sure all children have the best education. So any matriarchal government will care far more about the people they rule, than any patriarchal governments. 

Women ruling the world can save us form nuclear warfare. Even though it is obvious that making nuclear weapons and using them to threaten other countries is a really bad idea - Patriarchal countries continue to do this and are unable to find a peaceful solution. This is because of men’s aggressive and competitive instincts. But if women did rule the world then they would see the stupidity of nuclear weapons and work together to disarm. 

Another argument against women ruling world is that if we assume women are less aggressive and competitive than men, then it is less likely that women will ever get into a position where they can rule the world. This is true when men take control of countries either through a violent revolution or by conquest. A matriarchal government is possible in democratic countries so a matriarchal political party can be voted into power.

The advantage of a matriarchal political party, as opposed to feminism, is that it can tell voters why women would be better rulers than men - Putting forward all the arguments explained in this article. And if a matriarchal government does get into power, to stay in power it has to do the things it claims it is and demonstrate that they are caring rulers. So matriarchy is the means of getting caring people into positions of power. 

Ajax says:  Amen to that!  The only real solution is for Women, the better half of humanity, to reclaim their rightful place as the new leaders of the free world, God willing.